Guess what we're doing in physics right now. Hint: The title has nothing to do with it. Nothing.

Anyway, we're doing optics. In class we discussed real images and virtual images. I won't go into too much detail but basically, what I became aware of is that for the eye to form an image, it must have a lens that focuses light onto a single point. This is because unfocused light cannot create a real image.

Without a lens, the light from a point on the object will be spread out onto a wide area. However, for an image to be created, the light from a specific point needs to converge (with a lens) onto a single point on the surface the image is being constructed on.

Our eye uses a converging lens in order to do this. Light from images goes through the lens, and the eye's lens automatically adjusts to focus the light from an object onto the retina.

As you can see, unless the light is completely focused, no actual image is formed. Or, should I say, the image becomes blurred.Thus, without the lens in the eye, no image is formed. Without a lens the eye wouldn't be able to form an image. At all. Which then means there is no purpose in having a retina that can discern between colors, and no need for the brain to have the necessary facilities to discern an image from the cell's input, and thus vision wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced. "primitive" eyes without a lens in real life can only tell between light and dark.

An example of this kind of "primitive" eye is the jellyfish, which has a number of light-sensing organs that the jellyfish uses to determine which way is up. These organs can only sense light, and cannot form an image. Even if they had a lens, they wouldn't be able to create an image, because the jellyfish's nervous system is not capable of interpreting data from retinal cells. If the jellyfish were to have retinas covering its body, it still wouldn't be able to see, because not only would its brain be incapable of interpreting the results as an image (unless we assume it had that too) but the lack of a lens means that no image would be formed on the retinas.

So my question to those defending naturalistic evolution, I want to ask how it is possible for a complex system such as the human eye--which depends on multiple parts simultaneously working together in order to achieve its basic function--to evolve through natural selection? Don't tell me that I am arguing from incredulity. It is simple scientific fact that the eye would not work at all, even at a basic level, without a lens. The lens and the retina are both CRUCIAL parts and we have NO evidence that they evolved from an existing structure.

The other part is the processing of the information so that in a visual display it can be seen as it really is. Yet this process according to most evolutionist was easy to come by even though no observable mechanism can be provided that shows exactly how any part of the evolution process would know exactly what to mutate next and when to stop mutating when the goal is reached. Because there is nothing naturally that can "guide" all the mutations required unto a certain direction to evolve the finished product. Because when a evolutionist has to step into that realm of explanations, he soon realizes there is not one unless intelligence is added.

So even though they could show an eye at this point, that point, or the last point of the supposed evolution process. They will never be able to explain what guides the mutation process to go to any point without intelligence.

Example:
1) How did evolution determine that we needed to see in order to survive?
2) How did evolution know what to evolve in order to see?
3) How did evolution know that there needed to be a separate processing center of the brain to process site?
4) And how did evolution know which to evolve first? The eye or the vision center of the brain?
5) How did evolution know how to design the eye so that it would work like it does?
6) Last but not least is how did evolution know how to program the vision center of the brain to process the information from the eye so that we could comprehend what we see? Saying that it just happens is like saying you can hook up a hardware with no drivers and the computer would eventually learn how to use the hardware. Not going to happen.

Good thread. Good luck in finding a evolutionist that will post and be able to address these issues.

They'll just state that it evolved from light sensitive patches.... (Good luck on finding an actual mechanism or the specific mutations, apparently all that needs to be said is "evolution did it" and that is scientific)

They'll just state that it evolved from light sensitive patches.... (Good luck on finding an actual mechanism or the specific mutations, apparently all that needs to be said is "evolution did it" and that is scientific)

I'm glad someone else see's that besides me that evolutionists have a God did it excuse that is without God whether they admit to it or not.

They'll just state that it evolved from light sensitive patches.... (Good luck on finding an actual mechanism or the specific mutations, apparently all that needs to be said is "evolution did it" and that is scientific)

That is exactly what cannot happen, because the only application of a lens is to focus light, and the only application of a retina is to form an image. There is no in-between, or any parts that could change in function. We know that a lens that produces no image is useless, and that a retina that produces no image would be useless. It is not simply that we can't imagine evolution doing this, it is that this is genuine irreducible complexity, because the components of the eye have no other function at all without each other.

My apologies for the double post, but I was wondering if it was possible to edit a post and/or change the topic title. I'd like to make the title a little more informative as to catch people's eyes more easily (hehe). Something like "Irreducible Complexity in the Human Eye"

My apologies for the double post, but I was wondering if it was possible to edit a post and/or change the topic title. I'd like to make the title a little more informative as to catch people's eyes more easily (hehe). Something like "Irreducible Complexity in the Human Eye"

I can change it but it's not going to draw any evolutionists in here. They avoid the subject for a reason. You are not the first to put up a thread that has the sounds of crickets as far as evolutionists are concerned. Just chalk it up as learning which subjects cannot be addressed scientifically to solely support evolution.

Yes evolutionists claim the eye evolved from a few light sensitive cells. However, what gets me is human hearing. Simple cells don't have bones, but our ears have tiny bones which vibrate together to transmit the sound to the cochlea. How do they explain this? Maybe early cells used to play drums to each other.

They'll just state that it evolved from light sensitive patches.... (Good luck on finding an actual mechanism or the specific mutations, apparently all that needs to be said is "evolution did it" and that is scientific)

And yet they'll do so from absolutly NO scientific stand point, NO empirical evidence, and NO factual basis. As Adam Nagy use to say "It's all smoke and mirrors". Yes, Evolutionisim is built upon many unfounded statements, and lots of faith.

"Yes, Evolutionisim is built upon many unfounded statements, and lots of faith"

I love the way an expert can look at a tiny fragment of jawbone and decide which ancestor it was from and the transitions that came from it. They can even take a ton of clay and produce the complete organism, be it a mammal or reptile, and show us what it looked like. It is then put into museums and text books as fact.

I asked my physics teacher if an eye with no lens would even produce an image at all. He said no... he didn't give a detailed answer, but it's probably because the lens causes multiple rays to converge on corresponding points. That is how the image is formed. Without a lens, no image is formed at all, so a lensless eye would not work. That's what we've been learning in the past few days.

Little does my physics teacher know, however, that he has just undermined evolution in saying no

I asked my physics teacher if an eye with no lens would even produce an image at all. He said no... he didn't give a detailed answer, but it's probably because the lens causes multiple rays to converge on corresponding points. That is how the image is formed. Without a lens, no image is formed at all, so a lensless eye would not work. That's what we've been learning in the past few days.

Little does my physics teacher know, however, that he has just undermined evolution in saying no

Its funny when you ask a seemingly harmless question they'll tell you whats what... Yet add in the word evolution and it will be defended vigorously.

"Yes, Evolutionisim is built upon many unfounded statements, and lots of faith"

I love the way an expert can look at a tiny fragment of jawbone and decide which ancestor it was from and the transitions that came from it. They can even take a ton of clay and produce the complete organism, be it a mammal or reptile, and show us what it looked like. It is then put into museums and text books as fact.

What is even more odd is that an entire kind/species of humanoid can be "created" from a pigs tooth!

Guess what we're doing in physics right now. Hint: The title has nothing to do with it. Nothing. Anyway, we're doing optics. In class we discussed real images and virtual images. I won't go into too much detail but basically, what I became aware of is that for the eye to form an image, it must have a lens that focuses light onto a single point. This is because unfocused light cannot create a real image. Without a lens, the light from a point on the object will be spread out onto a wide area. However, for an image to be created, the light from a specific point needs to converge (with a lens) onto a single point on the surface the image is being constructed on. Our eye uses a converging lens in order to do this. Light from images goes through the lens, and the eye's lens automatically adjusts to focus the light from an object onto the retina. As you can see, unless the light is completely focused, no actual image is formed. Or, should I say, the image becomes blurred. Thus, without the lens in the eye, no image is formed. Without a lens the eye wouldn't be able to form an image. At all. Which then means there is no purpose in having a retina that can discern between colors, and no need for the brain to have the necessary facilities to discern an image from the cell's input, and thus vision wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced. "primitive" eyes without a lens in real life can only tell between light and dark. An example of this kind of "primitive" eye is the jellyfish, which has a number of light-sensing organs that the jellyfish uses to determine which way is up. These organs can only sense light, and cannot form an image. Even if they had a lens, they wouldn't be able to create an image, because the jellyfish's nervous system is not capable of interpreting data from retinal cells. If the jellyfish were to have retinas covering its body, it still wouldn't be able to see, because not only would its brain be incapable of interpreting the results as an image (unless we assume it had that too) but the lack of a lens means that no image would be formed on the retinas. So my question to those defending naturalistic evolution, I want to ask how it is possible for a complex system such as the human eye--which depends on multiple parts simultaneously working together in order to achieve its basic function--to evolve through natural selection? Don't tell me that I am arguing from incredulity. It is simple scientific fact that the eye would not work at all, even at a basic level, without a lens. The lens and the retina are both CRUCIAL parts and we have NO evidence that they evolved from an existing structure.

Here are a few more tidbits to add to you repetoire. Every photon of light entering the eye has to be assigned a time of arrival componet. It will be used to reassemble in conciousness a replica of the visual experience, create depth and persrspective not to mention over 16.5 million colors including shades of grey..

Think of the left side on an object, the right side of the same object and the middle (and every point inbetween) The light from every point of that object reflected into the eye reaches the eyeis retina at a different time. Keep in mind light is travelling at a speed of 186,000 miles per second. The electochemical system of the eye has to be able to handle those speeds,

The chemicals that are used in the eye respon to a photon of light at an astounding 1,000,000 of a billionth of a second! The visual cortext sends its calculations to both hemisphers of the brain. When a defect occusr in the transmission of said data, 'blindsightedness' can occur. The motor areas of the brain are able to allow us to negotiae an obstacle course with no vision rising to conciousness. Different hemisphers are responsible for concious vision vs data used for motor operations.

Additionally, the cells that make up the lens somehow lose their nuclei so they can be transparent to light--go figure. Other areas of the brain idetify and conpare visual data to previously experienced visual data stored in memory.to identify what we see. How did the software to do all that write itself?

There isone question I want an evolutionist to answer? If both eyes evolved seperately to be virtually Identical? We also have a left hand and a right hand-- basically idenical but opposites. What is the chance of that happening?

I can change it but it's not going to draw any evolutionists in here. They avoid the subject for a reason. You are not the first to put up a thread that has the sounds of crickets as far as evolutionists are concerned. Just chalk it up as learning which subjects cannot be addressed scientifically to solely support evolution.

OK, what's their usual take on this? I recall the story witht he light sensitive patches that then somehow evolved into rather complex eyes several times. Guess that would have taken millions of intermediary forms a vast majority of whom would be useless to counterproductive to the organism. But perhaps they have something they can come up with I am overlooking here.

OK, what's their usual take on this? I recall the story witht he light sensitive patches that then somehow evolved into rather complex eyes several times. Guess that would have taken millions of intermediary forms a vast majority of whom would be useless to counterproductive to the organism. But perhaps they have something they can come up with I am overlooking here.

Not to mention the first appearance of eyes in the fossil record shows complexity, not bit by bit progression as the story goes.